There has been a lot ofThis is one of those cases where (I believe) people of good conscience can and will disagree. I know there are people who will abstain completely and people who will say I can't vote for [insert name here] .
inkpixels spilled over the Scott/Nelson choice by fellow Florida bloggers. It's one of those classic instances of there not being a good choice and I'm not sure I remember a time when the choice in an election included someone I thought was really good, just the lesser of two evils. In this case, again, it's like digging in the cat box for the cleanest turd.
I've left this choice running in the background of my mind, like a background processor in your computer, and periodically asked myself if anything makes sense or stands out. A dim concept has emerged from the fog.
Similar to the "cleanest turd" analogy, the thought is "which one is more harmful?" I have to come down that Nelson is more harmful. Allow me to explain a minute.
Rick Scott damaged us badly as the CEO of Florida and the de facto head of the Stupid Party of Florida. If he goes to the Senate, Scott goes from being CEO (as he's been for most of his adult life) to being the lowest man on the totem pole. He'll just be one of a hundred in the world's most overpaid debating club. He has no power over us. He'll be one of the most junior members and therefore essentially powerless. He can propose any stupid law he wants, and Turtle Boy just has to ignore him. If Scott proposes things that the majority opposes, he gets nothing. I frankly don't know he can adjust his ego from being almost all-powerful, to being the 100th most powerful person in the senate (or even the 90th most important).
Bill Nelson has been in that sort of check since the GOP took the senate back the latest time. It's why there's a prevailing opinion that we can work around him. We can work around him because the situation has him powerless. I see Nelson as being potentially more damaging. He has a lot of seniority, which brings power in the arcane world of the senate. He has been a reliable vote for Chuckie Schumer. IF the stupid party retains control of the senate, or expands control, and Nelson wins, he will remain in check. If Nelson wins and the legendary "blue wave" happens, giving the majority to the Evil party, he can do more damage.
Nelson, by the way, screwed over US ham radio operators in a way analogous to how Scott screwed over Florida gun owners, by refusing to vote for a pro-amateur radio bill because it threatened home owners' associations (which I see as intrusive government; Nelson's home field). Which means both of them have screwed me.
...Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) has been the lead obstructionist during several stages of efforts to enact the Amateur Radio Parity Act, which has passed the US House of Representatives four times. Lisenco further added that that Nelson’s opposition makes no sense as Florida desperately needs effective Amateur Radio disaster communications during hurricanes, and hurricane season is rapidly approaching.No senator can do the damage that the CEO of a state and party boss can do, though.
Neither one is pro-gun. If the Senate stays "red" and decides it's going to pass national reciprocity or something for gun owners, Scott would vote for it to stay in the good graces of the party; Nelson would vote against it for the very same reason. If the senate turns "blue" and decides it's going to ban all the things, Nelson will vote for it and Scott will vote against it. Not for us but to stay in the good graces of the party. Nelson is absolutely a big government guy while Scott's tenure in the capital shows he's not. Neither is likely to be influenced by "write your senator" campaigns, unless they see a much bigger picture than just a handful of riled up constituents.
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I know some people who will abstain (or have). I know some people who held their nose and voted one way of the other. I'm just sharing my thinking in the hopes it might be helpful to someone else.